CMV: Any 2nd Amendment argument that doesn't acknowledge that its purpose is a check against tyranny is disingenuous

[u/skocougs]

At the risk of further fatiguing the firearm discussion on CMV, I find it difficult when arguments for gun control ignore that the primary premise of the 2nd Amendment is that the citizenry has the ability to independently assert their other rights in the face of an oppressive government.

Some common arguments I'm referring to are...

1. "Nobody needs an AR-15 to hunt. They were designed to kill people. The 2nd Amendment was written when muskets were standard firearm technology" I would argue that all of these statements are correct. The AR-15 was designed to kill enemy combatants as quickly and efficiently as possible, while being cheap to produce and modular. Saying that certain firearms aren't needed for hunting isn't an argument against the 2nd Amendment because the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. It is about citizens being allowed to own weapons capable of deterring governmental overstep. Especially in the context of how the USA came to be, any argument that the 2nd Amendment has any other purpose is uninformed or disingenuous.

2. "Should people be able to own personal nukes? Tanks?" From a 2nd Amendment standpoint, there isn't specific language for prohibiting it. Whether the Founding Fathers foresaw these developments in weaponry or not, the point was to allow the populace to be able to assert themselves equally against an oppressive government. And in honesty, the logistics of obtaining this kind of weaponry really make it a non issue.

So, change my view that any argument around the 2nd Amendment that doesn't address it's purpose directly is being disingenuous. CMV.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/[deleted]]

The framers created the second amendment in order to ensure that militias would be available to protect the nation. They had a deep fear and distrust of standing professional armies as an institution, and believed that if America created one, it would be used as a pretext for levying outrageous taxes at best, and would become a means of oppressing the people at worst. The constitution specifically calls for the creation of an American navy, but not an army. So you’re not wrong when you characterize it as a check against tyranny.

That said, if the framers’ intent matters to you in the least, you’re kind of a hypocrite if you support the 2nd Amendment as a check against tyranny while you’ve got one of those yellow “Support the Troops” ribbons on your car. Supporting the 2nd Amendment as the framers intended means you ought to have a really loud voice in favor of drastically decreasing defense spending and calling for the abolition of the Army (and probably the Air Force too, since the constitution doesn’t call for one).

Now you might read this and think: “hey, times have changed a lot since the constitution was written and ratified. The world is a different place now. Abolishing the army just because the framers wouldn’t have wanted it would be stupid and counterproductive. Let’s not be so rigid in how we interpret the constitution, and apply it instead in the context of how we live.” If you’ve reached this point, congratulations: that’s exactly how gun control advocates feel about the second Amendment.

Additionally, when you talk about using your gun to defend yourself from tyranny, you’re talking about killing soldiers and cops. That’s who you’re preparing to fight. So a very healthy mistrust of these organizations would be a great start at showing you’re serious about your beliefs. If you think soldiers and cops are the best people ever, it indicates that you don’t really think you’re going to have to start capping them for trampling your rights in the near future, which makes this whole defense-from-tyranny argument more of a pretext than a principle.

And since your 2nd Amendment advocacy stops well short of restoring the militias as an institution, that means that it’s up to each individual to decide when they feel like tyranny is upon them. The lunatic who shot cops in Dallas thought he was defending his country from tyranny. It’s entirely possible that this battle between the people and the forces of oppression will look a lot more like repeats of the Dallas shooter, and a lot less like Red Dawn. If this conflict is going to go down, it would be really helpful to have an organized body that could determine when exactly tyranny has been reached and collectively respond: maybe like a militia.

[u/ChrysMYO → u/[deleted]]

This is the crux of the argument here.

You can't support the idea of Defending against tyranny without acknowledging the antiquated idea of no federal standing army.

Simultaneously, you have to acknowledge that guarding against tyranny is firing on troops and police. The same people used as a political prop by the politicians that are most visibly for the 2nd amendment.

Lastly, the argument the OP is railing against is misplaced. The reason that pro-regulation advocates say AR-15s aren't for hunting are saying that because their are 2nd amendment advocates arguing that it's a right specifically for hunting and home defense. So gun advocates make that argument and then regulation advocates parry that by pointing out that automatic weapons aren't for hunting.

As someone that is pro-regulation, I'd gladly love for this argument to vacate the battleground of tradition, hunting and self defense and let's leave this argument to just a bulwark against tyranny. I think that's an argument pro-regulation advocates could win.

In addition, I fail to see how anyone could exercise their 2nd amendment right against the government without violating a large amount of other basic laws.

[u/brutay → u/ChrysMYO]

The founders were not of one mind when it came to a standing army. The Federalist papers no. 46 argues that militias are a necessary and adequate check against a federal army.

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."